Fig. 2: Comparison of relative poverty status between urban and rural areas in China. | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Fig. 2: Comparison of relative poverty status between urban and rural areas in China.

From: Can household inclusive finance alleviate the relative poverty of rural residents? Evidence from static and dynamic perspectives

Fig. 2: Comparison of relative poverty status between urban and rural areas in China.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Notes: (1) All original data in Fig. 2 are sourced from the China Statistical Yearbook. (2) The income ratio in (a) is calculated based on quintile grouping data from the China Statistical Yearbook. It represents the ratio of the per capita disposable income of the top 20% of households (high-income group) to the per capita disposable income of the bottom 20% of households (low-income group). This indicator aims to measure the size of the income distribution gap by comparing the income levels of different income classes. Its calculation methodology aligns with the principles of the OECD and World Bank’s income disparity indicators (such as P90/P10). (3) The calculation method for the income Gini coefficient in (b) follows Tian (2012), a method recognized by the academic community (Huang and Zuo 2023). The Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate greater income inequality. A Gini coefficient closer to 1 signifies a highly uneven income distribution and more severe relative poverty.

Back to article page